- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
I will make a statement about history. One of you needs to challenge me on it. I will then try to defend it. Ok? Here is my statement:
Man is supposed to learn from his past mistakes by studying history. However, man continues to engage in war and make serious social mistakes in the modern age. Therefore, studying history does not help man learn from his past mistakes.
Studying history does not equate to learning from history. Likewise, since history is so open to various interpretations, learning from history is not enough… learning the RIGHT things from history is what is important. But why do so many not learn the “right” lessons — primarily due to those various interpretations and biases… not to mention faulty logic.
Studying history does not equate to learning from history. Likewise, since history is so open to various interpretations, learning from history is not enough... learning the RIGHT things from history is what is important. But why do so many not learn the "right" lessons -- primarily due to those various interpretations and biases... not to mention faulty logic.
So does the divergence of interpretations and biases mean that there are no "objective" truths to take from history? In other words, is history reduced to a collection of stories which can make virtually any point? If so, that would seem to support the original statement about the futility of studying history.
So does the divergence of interpretations and biases mean that there are no "objective" truths to take from history?
No, it means that those objective truths are hard to find... and even more difficult to apply appropriately to today. Too often, people look to history for a "cookie cutter" lesson or solution to today's problems or situation. Good history is hard work.
To go back to your original statement - I think that you are employing too many absolutes in your argument. Briefly restated, if I may, your argument is:1. Man is supposed to learn from history.2. Man still makes many of the same mistakes that have been made throughout history.3. Man does not effectively learn from history.4. Therefore, there is no need to study history.If we assume that the statement in number one is correct (BTW, who says man is supposed to learn from history?) then we can restate it as "Man is supposed to learn from his experiences and the experiences of others" - whether those experiences are observed or recorded and accessed at a later time.The second statement above indicates that man has made mistakes throughout history and continues ot make them today.The third statement assumes a perfect knowledge -- that in order to avoid making the same mistakes that have been made in history, man must learn all of the pertinent lessons from history.Assuming that man did somehow learn all the lessons of history, is there still not a role for judgment, both good and bad? Could it be that man acts even though they knew better?I should mention here that my original statement is not my actual opinion but something I wanted to throw out there for a practice in sophistry, and so there are some admitted holes in the logic I'm using. What I do believe is that man is supposed to learn from history (I think this is one of the most generally-accepted reasons for learning it) but that history can never be a “blueprint” for future decisions. The answer seems obvious enough if we consider the truth behind the adage, history never repeats itself. In other words, there are always new variables in the present which people in the past did not face or experience, making the present always unique compared to the past. Americans will never face the same exact challenges that the Greeks or Romans faced, but instead we might face similar challenges. History can help us approach these challenges but cannot solve them for us.In my opinion, lessons from studying history can at best be used as tools for present decision-making. As tools, they can be used to support arguments, both pro- and con-, and in the end the final decisions makers (whether the king or the people) will be convinced one way or the other. So you are absolutely right that the critical role of judgment comes into play after the lessons from history are presented. An example of how history and judgment play out differently comes from American wars with Iraq. George H.W. Bush did not invade Baghdad on the ground in 1991 because he did not want to commit American troops to an urban war which could become nasty. George W. Bush did so because, presumably, the cost of such commitment outweighed the risk of not doing so. Each president must have used history as a guide, but separated by a decade they came to different conclusions.
